Judges at the Court of Appeal should give guidance on when it would be unfair to compel a developer to pay the costs of cladding replacement, a lawyer for the developer of London’s Olympic Village told the court today.
Stratford Village Development Partnership, the developer of London’s Olympic Village, and its parent company Get Living, are seeking to appeal a judgment ordering them to pay around £18m to cover the costs of replacing unsafe cladding.
The case examines the regime put in place under the Building Safety Act of 2022 in the wake of the 2017 Grenfell Tower fire. The aim of the legislation is to make sure remedial works get completed quickly and don’t get mired in legal issues, and isn’t paid for by residents.
Under this regime, the government’s Building Safety Fund initially fronts the costs of rectifying fire safety and structural safety problems. Then judges at specialist property tribunal The First-tier Tribunal can order a developer to repay the costs via a Remediation Contribution Order. The developer will usually then seek to recover the costs from the contractor responsible for the problem.
In January last year, the FTT made such an order against SVDP after an application from affordable housing company Triathlon Homes, which manages properties across the East Village estate and owns some of the long leases.
However, the FTT failed to consider whether making the order against SVDP was “fair and equitable”, SVDP’s lawyer Jonathan Selby KC said at today’s hearing.
According to the legislation, there is no requirement for the FTT to prove that a developer was a fault before making an RCO.
“A developer may have done all that could be reasonably expected of it to build a safe building but will still be considered responsible for the relevant defects caused by others,” he said.
Even so, the legislation does require the FTT to consider whether making an RCO is “just and equitable,” he said.
However, this has never happened, he said. “There is not a single reported case where the FTT has declined to make an order,” he said.
“Hearings are coming on and decisions are being made in months, not years,” he said. “We are now in a situation where a steer is required from the higher court as to when it will not be just and suitable to make an order.”
In this case, “the FTT made errors” and failed to take several factors into account, he said.
According court papers, following the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017, the estate’s property management company discovered combustible cladding had been used on five of the site’s 66 blocks.
The five buildings concerned are Meller House, Chroma Mansions, Seasons House, Patina Mansions and Kaleidoscope House. Each block contains three-storey townhouses or maisonettes and retail units on the lower levels.
The management company is currently removing and replacing the cladding using public money provided by the government’s BSF. The work is scheduled to be completed by August.
Even so, Triathlon applied to the FTT for contributions from SVDP and Get Living under the 2022 Building Safety Act.
The FTT agreed. In its ruling, it said Triathlon was entitled to just over £16m for remedial works and around £2m more for added costs.
It also said the companies should prepare to deal with “future contingencies” that might arise from the project.
Today’s hearing is focused on the £16m remedial work bill. The hearing is scheduled to last for the rest of the week, with judgement handed down at a later date.
Stratford Village Development Partnership & anr (appellants) v Triathlon Homes LLP & anr (respondents)
Court of Appeal, 19 March 2025
Share your feedback
